John Lear's Affidavit in the Morgan Reynolds lawsuit against NIST and its contractors

[James H. Fetzer]

This affidavit was the subect of "The Real Deal" interview with John Lear today:

John Lear swears and affirms as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .................
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged
>>>>> by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes
>>>>> did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted for
>>>>> the following reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>> A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing
>>>>> 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch
>>>>> steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and
>>>>> horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the
>>>>> aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>> B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have
>>>>> maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or
>>>>> been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged
>>>>> engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three
>>>>> other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating
>>>>> temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly
>>>>> have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a
>>>>> McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of
>>>>> speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact.(photo,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...rld/main546355. shtml)
>>>>>
>>>>> C. When and if the nose of an airplane came in contact with the
>>>>> buildings 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns and then, 37 feet
>>>>> beyond, the steel box columns of the building core the momentum of
>>>>> the wings would have slowed drastically depriving them of the energy
>>>>> to penetrate the exterior steel box columns. The spars of the wing,
>>>>> which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch
>>>>> by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would
>>>>> have crashed to the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>> D. The argument that the energy of the mass of the Boeing 767 at a
>>>>> speed of 540 mph fails because:
>>>>>
>>>>> a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet
>>>>> above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity
>>>>> and parasite power which cubes with velocity.
>>>>>
>>>>> b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept
>>>>> the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> E. The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window
>>>>> cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box
>>>>> columns, placed 39 inches in center, at over 500 mph. This fuselage
>>>>> section would be telescopically crumpled had it actually penetrated
>>>>> the building as depicted in the CNN video. It is impossible for it
>>>>> to have then re-emerged from the building and then fallen intact and
>>>>> unburned as depicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> F. The Purdue video fails because no significant part of the Boeing
>>>>> 767 or engine thereon could have penetrated the 14 inch steel
>>>>> columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without
>>>>> part of it falling to the ground. The Purdue video misrepresents the
>>>>> construction of the core of the building and depicts unidentified
>>>>> parts of the airplane snapping the core columns which were 12"x36".
>>>>> The Purdue video also misrepresents what would happen to the tail
>>>>> when the alleged fuselage contacted the core. The tail would
>>>>> instantaneously separate from the empennage (aft fuselage). Further,
>>>>> the Purdue video misrepresents, indeed it fails to show, the wing
>>>>> box or center section of the wing in the collision with the core.
>>>>> The wing box is a very strong unit designed to hold the wings
>>>>> together and is an integral portion of the fuselage. The wing box is
>>>>> designed to help distribute the loads of the wings up-and-down
>>>>> flexing in flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> G. My analysis of the alleged cutout made by the Boeing 767 shows
>>>>> that many of the 14-inch exterior steel box columns which are shown
>>>>> as severed horizontally, do not match up with the position of the
>>>>> wings. Further, several of the columns through which the horizontal
>>>>> tail allegedly disappeared are not severed or broken. In addition,
>>>>> the wing tips of the Boeing 767 being of less robust construction
>>>>> than the inner portions of the wings could not possibly have made
>>>>> the cookie-cutter pattern as shown in the aftermath photos. The wing
>>>>> tips would have been stopped by the 14 inch steel box columns and
>>>>> fallen to the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>> H. The debris of the Boeing 767, as found after the
>>>>> collapse, was not consistent with actual debris had there really
>>>>> been a crash. Massive forgings, spars from both the wing and
>>>>> horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear retract cylinders,
>>>>> landing gear struts, hydraulic reservoirs and bogeys oxygen bottles,
>>>>> a massive keel beam, bulkheads and the wing box itself cold not
>>>>> possibly have 'evaporated' even in a high intensity fire. The debris
>>>>> of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing
>>>>> 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds
>>>>> apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of
>>>>> any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the
>>>>> WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> III.
>>>>>
>>>>> 9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain
>>>>> and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would
>>>>> have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time
>>>>> in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at
>>>>> high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and
>>>>> flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these
>>>>> reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>> A. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the
>>>>> Boeing 767 they would be looking at an EFIS (Electronic Flight
>>>>> Instrumentation System) display panel comprised of six large
>>>>> multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of 'hard' instruments.
>>>>> These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into
>>>>> an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
>>>>> progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but
>>>>> also with regard to time and speed as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as alleged there would
>>>>> be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the
>>>>> instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have
>>>>> had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have
>>>>> had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position
>>>>> and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further
>>>>> distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet,
>>>>> sticky and difficult to hold onto.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of
>>>>> taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of
>>>>> his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these
>>>>> conditions. The alleged hijackers were not 'instrument rated' and
>>>>> controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly
>>>>> referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed
>>>>> instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly 'visually' under
>>>>> controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the
>>>>> cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach.
>>>>>
>>>>> The alleged 'controlled' descent into New York on a relatively
>>>>> straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because
>>>>> of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent
>>>>> speed within the parameters of 'controlled' flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "EFIS" (Electronic
>>>>> Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker
>>>>> pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his
>>>>> controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and
>>>>> throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 767
>>>>> does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of
>>>>> the controls.
>>>>>
>>>>> B. As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414
>>>>> mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the
>>>>> cockpit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be
>>>>> irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is
>>>>> exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had
>>>>> no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply
>>>>> because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability
>>>>> to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning,
>>>>> impossible because of the noise and distraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> C. Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate
>>>>> into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of
>>>>> approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have
>>>>> about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67
>>>>> seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft.
>>>>> wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking
>>>>> plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking
>>>>> bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability
>>>>> limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising
>>>>> irregular currents of air.
>>>>>
>>>>> He would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of
>>>>> precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted,
>>>>> would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have
>>>>> sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute. To
>>>>> propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a
>>>>> Boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up
>>>>> and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally
>>>>> bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [NIST
>>>>> claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for AA11 at
>>>>> impact and 6 degrees for UA175; see page 276 of 462 in NCSTAR 1-2].
>>>>>
>>>>> That an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties
>>>>> and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and
>>>>> 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not
>>>>> possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot I know that I
>>>>> could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged
>>>>> hijackers, with limited experience to have hit the twin towers dead
>>>>> center on September 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> IV.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10. No Boeing 767 airliner(s) exceeded 500 mph in level flight at
>>>>> approximately 1000 feet on 9/11 as fraudulently alleged by the
>>>>> government, media, NIST and its contractors because they are
>>>>> incapable of such speeds at low altitude.
>>>>>
>>>>> 11. One of the critical issues of the 'impossible' speeds of the
>>>>> aircraft hitting the World Trade Center Towers alleged by NIST as
>>>>> 443 mph (385 kts. M.6, American Airlines Flight 11) and 542 mph (470
>>>>> kts. M.75, United Airlines 175) is that the VD or dive velocity of
>>>>> the Boeing 767 as certificated by the Federal Aviation under 14 CFR
>>>>> Part 25 Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Transports of
>>>>> 420 kts CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) makes these speeds achievable.
>>>>> This is unlikely.
>>>>>
>>>>> 12. The 'Dive Velocity' VD is 420 knots CAS (calibrated
>>>>> airspeed)(483 mph). Some allege that this speed, 420 knots (483 mph)
>>>>> is near enough to the NIST alleged speeds that the NIST speeds 443
>>>>> (385 kts.) mph and 542 mph (471 kts.), could have been flown by the
>>>>> alleged hijackers and are probably correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> 13. In fact VD of 420 knots (483 mph) is a speed that is a maximum
>>>>> for certification under 14 CFR Part 25.253 High Speed
>>>>> Characteristics and has not only not necessarily been achieved but
>>>>> is far above VFC (390 kts. 450 mph) which is the maximum speed at
>>>>> which stability characteristics must be demonstrated.(14 CFR 25.253
>>>>> (b).
>>>>>
>>>>> 14. What this means is not only was VD not necessarily achieved but
>>>>> even if it was, it was achieved in a DIVE demonstrating
>>>>> controllability considerably above VFC which is the maximum speed
>>>>> under which stability characteristics must be demonstrated. Further,
>>>>> that as the alleged speed is considerably above VFC for which
>>>>> stability characteristics must be met, a hijacker who is not an
>>>>> experienced test pilot would have considerable difficulty in
>>>>> controlling the airplane, similar to flying a bucking bronco, much
>>>>> less hitting a 208 foot target dead center, at 800 feet altitude
>>>>> (above mean sea level) at the alleged speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 15. Now to determine whether or not a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 could
>>>>> even attain 540 miles per hour at 800 feet we have to first consider
>>>>> what the drag versus the power ratio is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Drag is the effect of the air pushing against the frontal areas of
>>>>> the fuselage and wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Drag
>>>>> also includes the friction that is a result of the air flowing over
>>>>> these surfaces. If there was no drag you could go very fast. But we
>>>>> do have drag and there are 2 types: induced and parasite. Assume we
>>>>> are going really fast as NIST and the defendants claim, then we
>>>>> don't have to consider induced drag because induced drag is caused
>>>>> by lift and varies inversely as the square of the airspeed. What
>>>>> this means is the faster you go the lower the induced drag.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we do have to consider is parasite drag. Parasite drag is any
>>>>> drag produced that is not induced drag. Parasite drag is technically
>>>>> called 'form and friction' drag. It includes the air pushing against
>>>>> the entire airplane including the engines, as the engines try to
>>>>> push the entire airplane through the air.
>>>>>
>>>>> 16. We have two other things to consider: induced power and
>>>>> parasite power.
>>>>>
>>>>> Induced power varies inversely with velocity so we don't have to
>>>>> consider that because we are already going fast by assumption and it
>>>>> varies inversely.
>>>>> Parasite power however varies as the cube of the velocity which
>>>>> means to double the speed you have to cube or have three times the
>>>>> power.
>>>>>
>>>>> 17. So taking these four factors into consideration we are only
>>>>> concerned with two: parasite power and parasite drag, and if all
>>>>> other factors are constant, and you are level at 800 feet and making
>>>>> no turns, the parasite drag varies with the square of the velocity
>>>>> but parasite power varies as the cube of the velocity.
>>>>>
>>>>> What this means is at double the speed, drag doubles and the power
>>>>> required to maintain such speed, triples.
>>>>>
>>>>> The airspeed limitation for the Boeing 767 below approximately
>>>>> 23,000 feet is 360 kts [414 mph] or what they call VMO (velocity
>>>>> maximum operating).
>>>>>
>>>>> That means that the maximum permissible speed of the Boeing 767
>>>>> below 23,000 feet is 360 knots and it is safe to operate the
>>>>> airplane at that speed but not faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> 18. While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster
>>>>> during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned
>>>>> flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767
>>>>> pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below
>>>>> 23,000 feet.
>>>>>
>>>>> 19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American
>>>>> Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST
>>>>> speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is
>>>>> 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible
>>>>> considering:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) the power available,* **
>>>>> (2) parasite drag (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
>>>>> (3) parasite power (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
>>>>> (4) the controllability by a pilot with limited experience. 14 CFR
>>>>> Part 25.253 (a)(b)
>>>>> *
>>>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...01MA063&rpt=fa
>>>>> **
>>>>>
>>>>> -tcds/PW /PW4000_FAA.pdf>
>>>>> http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...PW4000_FAA.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> 20. Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade
>>>>> Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines
>>>>> Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred.
>>>>>
>>>>> 21. One more consideration is the impossibility of the PW4062
>>>>> turbofan engines to operate in dense air at sea level altitude at
>>>>> high speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Boeing 767 was designed to fly at high altitudes at a maximum
>>>>> Mach of .86 or 86/100ths the speed of sound. This maximum speed is
>>>>> called MMO, (Maximum Mach Operating). Its normal cruise speed,
>>>>> however, is Mach .80 (about 530 mph) or less, for better fuel
>>>>> economy. (The speed of sound at 35,000 feet is 663 mph so 530 mph is
>>>>> Mach .7998 see
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The fan tip diameter of the PW4062 which powered UAL 175 was 94
>>>>> inches, over 7 feet in diameter making it, essentially a huge
>>>>> propeller. This huge fan compresses enormous amount of air during
>>>>> takeoff to produce the thrust necessary to get the airplane off of
>>>>> the ground and into the air.
>>>>>
>>>>> At high altitudes, in cruise, where the air is much thinner and
>>>>> where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the fan
>>>>> and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous
>>>>> amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust.
>>>>>
>>>>> But at low altitudes, in much denser air, such as one thousand feet,
>>>>> where the air is over 3x as dense as at 35,000 feet, going much
>>>>> faster than Vmo or 360 knots, the air is going to start jamming up
>>>>> in the engine simply because a turbofan engine is not designed to
>>>>> take the enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low
>>>>> altitude flight. Because of the much denser air the fan blades will
>>>>> be jammed with so much air they will start cavitating or choking
>>>>> causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. The
>>>>> turbofan tip diameter is over 7 feet; it simply cannot accept that
>>>>> much dense air, at that rate, because they aren't designed to.
>>>>>
>>>>> So achieving an airspeed much over its Vmo which is 360 knots isn't
>>>>> going to be possible coupled with the fact that because the parasite
>>>>> drag increases as the square of the speed and the power
>>>>>
>>>>> required increases as the cube of the speed you are not going to be
>>>>> able to get the speed with the thrust (power) available.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be argued that modern aerodynamic principles hold that if an
>>>>> aircraft can fly at 35,000 ft altitude at 540 mph (~Mach 0.8), and
>>>>> for a given speed, both engine thrust and airframe drag vary
>>>>> approximately in proportion to air density (altitude), that the
>>>>> engine can produce enough thrust to fly 540 mph at 800 ft. altitude.
>>>>>
>>>>> That argument fails because although the engine might be
>>>>> theoretically capable of producing that amount of thrust, the real
>>>>> question is can that amount of thrust be extracted from it at 540
>>>>> mph at 800 ft.
>>>>>
>>>>> 22. To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed
>>>>> limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540
>>>>> mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust
>>>>> required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design
>>>>> which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 23. I am informed that the lawsuit for which this affidavit is
>>>>> intended is in its preliminary, pre-discovery phase. I am further
>>>>> informed that actual eyewitness statements cast considerable doubt
>>>>> on the jetliner crash claims, irrespective of the media-driven
>>>>> impression that there were lots of witnesses. In fact, the witnesses
>>>>> tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes. I am
>>>>> also informed that information that will enable further refinement
>>>>> of the issues addressed in this affidavit will be forthcoming in
>>>>> discovery including, without limitation, the opportunity to take
>>>>> depositions and to request relevant documentation (additional
>>>>> information). When that additional information is obtained, I will
>>>>> then be in a position to offer such other and further opinions as,
>>>>> upon analysis, that additional information will mandate.
>>>>>
>>>>> 24. At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted
>>>>> as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin
>>>>> Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be
>>>>> deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images
>>>>> notwithstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Notes:
>>>>> 1. On any chart plotting velocity versus either drag or thrust
>>>>> required or power required the parasite value rises sharply after
>>>>> 300 kts, 2. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust or power
>>>>> required the curves rises sharply after 250 kts.
>>>>> 3. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust required at sea
>>>>> level, the curve rises dramatically above 200 kts as does the curve
>>>>> for power required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I swear the above statements to be true to the best of my knowledge.
>>>>> _/s/ John Olsen Lear___________
>>>>> John Olsen Lear
>>>>> 1414 N. Hollywood Blvd.
>>>>> Las Vegas, NV 89110-2006
>>>>> Subscribed and Sworn to before
>>>>> me this 24 day of January 2008.
>>>>> /s/ Connie Jones______________
>>>>> Notary Public/Appt Exp. 11/22/09
>>>>> Certificate #94-2650-1
>>>>>
>>>>>

[Chuck Boldwyn]

Sounds like a great case, only if the lawyers, jurors, & especially the presiding Judge can understand it all.
Desperately required will be lawyers with scientific background, like patent attorneys, choosing jurors with scientific backgrounds, like physicists & engineers with aeronautics backgrounds, and a Judge
With a hard-core scientific background.
Without scientific people being most highly involved, the case may go nowhere!!!

[James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for your gracious response, Brian. If you think about the damage that small birds inflict upon planes when they are hit in air and weigh only a few ounces, it should become apparent that, whether they were box-like or solid (and I suppose they were box-like), impacting with even one of those supporting column plates would have inflicted massive damage on the plane--even if it had been suspended in space like a bird! So I think the situation is beyond salvaging. Let me know if you study killtown's diagrams, which are especially helpful in understanding the structure and how it was designed.

[Brian Good]

Thank you for your response, Dr. Fetzer. I realize my characterization of the question as yes-or-no was comical. I think that the difference between solid columns and tubular thin-wall columns makes a great deal of difference from the standpoint of physics--for the plane to penetrate solid columns is implausible, and Mr.
Lear's failure to clarify that that's not his problem with the impact is a weakness in his presentation IMHO.

I don't find the penetration of tubular box columns implausible, though you certainly raise some intriguing points. I guess your thesis is that crushing the fuselage section forward of the wing box should have consumed significant amounts of energy before the wings even hit the building. One supposes that NIST's exhaustive modeling of stuff like the structure of the airplane provides calculations providing some departure point for energetic analysis. I wonder if they honestly modeled the wingbox or it that was something they
"forgot"?

Thank you for your stimulating thoughts!

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, you can follow up by listening to my interview with John on "The Real Deal", which occurred this Monday, 27 July 2009, and should be archived shortly at radiofetzer.blogspot.com. My understanding is that it was done in relation to Judy Wood's lawsuit, even though it only indirectly dealt with planes. Remember that the official account is that it was the combination of the damage by the aircraft impacts together with the resulting fires that cause the steel to weaken, the upper floors to collapse, and all the rest. If there were no planes, there were no aircraft impacts or resulting fires, so I think Jerry Leaphart viewed his testimony as appropriate for submission to the court.

As for Brian's "simple yes or no" question, I will ask him about that, but it seems to me, from the point of view of physics, it hardly matters. The plane was made of aluminum, its nose is extremely fragile, and there is no way that the physics of the situation would have not resulted in compacting the fuselage, breaking off the tail, and major parts falling to the ground, none of which in fact occurred. Since no one is suggesting that the plane should have "bounced off" the building, you are resorting to a "straw man", which is an exaggerated version of a position that makes it easier to attack when a less vulnerable version is at hand. Look at the diagrams on killtown's site and you will see the problems that arguments like this one encounter.

[Brian Good]

Hi Dr. Fetzer. I think I asked a simple yes-or-no question. Was Mr. Lear aware that the columns were box columns with 1/4" walls or did he think they were solid? And I think you did not answer it.

I am well aware of the 4" concrete floors and the whole litany, and I agree with you that if as it appears the plane did not slow down when the wings hit the wall that is something meriting further investigation.

On the other hand it appears to me that since most of the mass of the plane hits on portions of the perimeter columns unbolstered by floors, since the walls of the perimeter box columns were only 1/4", and since the
plane debris can be sheared by the resistance of the floors, the belief that the tower structure should have rejected the plane structure to the extent of the latter bouncing off is questionable.

[James H. Fetzer]

Egad! How many times must I explain that the external support columns were welded to steel trusses, which were welded to the core columns and filled with four inches of concrete! That's an acre of concrete per floor. As a diagram from killtown display--visit http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html--Flight 175 intersected with eight of those floors. Anyone who thinks the plane should not have crumpled and broken apart--with massive debris falling to the ground, precisely as John Lear describes--does not understand the structure of the towers. Not only did no deceleration occur, but--by counting frames, as Joe Keith has recommended--it is possible to determine that the speed of the plane shown in the video passes though its entire length into the building as effortlessly as it passes through its entire length through air. Sorry, but you are off-base on this one. And are you unaware of the damage to planes caused by impacts with tiny birds weighing only a few ounces? I think you need to reconsider and think this matter through. John is completely right about this and you are wrong.

[Brian Good]

Since Mr. Lear does not describe the building columns I can't help wondering if his incredulity about the plane's penetration of the perimeter wall is based on the belief that these 14" x 14" columns were solid steel. They were hollow box columns, and at the top of the building their walls were only 1/4" thick.

The argument that the plane should have slowed when the wings hit the building is worth considering.